Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

Look, brightpilot6, let's break this down. What part of the Odyssey is actually confusing you?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

...

?

Can someone please explain to me what on earth love has to do with outer space?
Seriously, I don't care how much people obsess over romance; they can go hook up in orbit for all I care, but thinking it actually affects anything out there? That’s just straight-up moronic right from the jump.

Kubrick handled this stuff way more tightly and made actual sense of it—honestly, you shouldn't even put those two things in the same sentence.

ruggedjackal46 said:Just because the plot, the internal logic, and the core themes are essentially spoon-fed to an Interstellar viewer doesn't mean it’s a superior film to 2001, which actually demands a bit of intellectual heavy lifting from the audience.

And don't even get me started on the philosophy. To me, 2001 offers a pretty stark look at the absolute chaos of the human condition, whereas Interstellar just suggests that parental love can somehow overpower a black hole. It’s basically the philosophy of an American sitcom.

My response to that is that the movie's story is essentially a Rorschach test; people project whatever intense interpretations they want onto it, and then layer arbitrary takes on filmmaking technique on top of those interpretations. When I offered some perspectives that contradicted yours, ruggedjackal46, you actually admitted they were valid. So, where did I go wrong?

Just because a film allows for multiple interpretations doesn't make it completely random. Arbitrariness and blatant one-dimensionality are two different extremes, and 2001 sits somewhere comfortably in the middle.

If you approach every Hollywood production from the jump as nothing more than a frivolous crowd-pleaser, is it any wonder they never seem to ""show"" you anything?

For my part, "Interstellar" didn't exactly ""show"" me anything new; rather, it just nudged me back toward pondering those same old questions I've likely already written about a hundred times. And no, it certainly didn't provide any tidy answers to them.

After finishing "The Odyssey," I was left merely wondering who exactly is placing those monoliths and what the ultimate purpose behind it all might be. But then again, isn't that less of a philosophical inquiry and more of a fascination with the cosmos itself?

Kubrick was the GOAT, period. Everything else is just a total scam ☕

Walter Grant5 said:Look, brightpilot6, let's break this down. What part of the Odyssey is actually confusing you?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

...

?

Who exactly is placing these monoliths?
How do they actually function?
Why do their agents provide us with a tiny nudge forward, only to wait millions of years for spontaneous evolution without any further intervention?
Did the influence apply only to those who physically touched them, or did it affect the entire population?
If it was the latter, why didn't it affect other living creatures?
And why wasn't a monolith found on Earth, but rather on the Moon instead?
What is the connection to the alignment with the Sun—or rather, the star (though perhaps it operates on solar energy)?
What role does HAL play in all of this?
Why did he malfunction?
Is the ultimate purpose of all these monoliths simply to lead us into some room where we live out our days until death?
What did that stay in the room do to the man that resulted in him being reborn as that celestial infant?
Why didn't they just use a monolith to create whatever it was they made for him?

My creationist theory involving the Bible actually provides me with the most coherent explanation, yet you all insisted that the movie has nothing to do with it.

So, I am speaking strictly about the film, the narrative, and the internal logic of the movie itself, not Clarke's novel.

And I don't believe that every film with unanswered questions is inherently bad. For the umpteenth time—I am talking about the cohesion of the story.

brightpilot6 said:If you approach every Hollywood production from the jump as nothing more than a frivolous crowd-pleaser, is it any wonder they never seem to ""show"" you anything?

For my part, "Interstellar" didn't exactly ""show"" me anything new; rather, it just nudged me back toward pondering those same old questions I've likely already written about a hundred times. And no, it certainly didn't provide any tidy answers to them.

After finishing "The Odyssey," I was left merely wondering who exactly is placing those monoliths and what the ultimate purpose behind it all might be. But then again, isn't that less of a philosophical inquiry and more of a fascination with the cosmos itself?

Look, I didn't approach it that way. I went in without any massive expectations or hype, and honestly? I wasn't disappointed, but I wasn't blown away either. Just... there.

For me, Interstellar didn't "show" me anything new; it just nudged me back toward those same old questions I've probably typed out a hundred times already. And no, it certainly didn't hand me any answers.

After watching 2001: A Space Odyssey, I was just left wondering who's actually putting those monoliths out there and what the point of the whole charade is. But then again, is that even a philosophical question? Is being fascinated by the cosmos really a matter of philosophy?

We all react differently to different films and themes, I suppose. But really, what can you expect from someone who swears by the likes of Florentino Pérez and Luis Figo? If you can't appreciate the beauty of a well-played game on the pitch, you aren't going to see it in the stars either. ☕

brightpilot6 said:Who exactly is placing these monoliths?
How do they actually function?
Why do their agents provide us with a tiny nudge forward, only to wait millions of years for spontaneous evolution without any further intervention?
Did the influence apply only to those who physically touched them, or did it affect the entire population?
If it was the latter, why didn't it affect other living creatures?
And why wasn't a monolith found on Earth, but rather on the Moon instead?
What is the connection to the alignment with the Sun—or rather, the star (though perhaps it operates on solar energy)?
What role does HAL play in all of this?
Why did he malfunction?
Is the ultimate purpose of all these monoliths simply to lead us into some room where we live out our days until death?
What did that stay in the room do to the man that resulted in him being reborn as that celestial infant?
Why didn't they just use a monolith to create whatever it was they made for him?

My creationist theory involving the Bible actually provides me with the most coherent explanation, yet you all insisted that the movie has nothing to do with it.

So, I am speaking strictly about the film, the narrative, and the internal logic of the movie itself, not Clarke's novel.

And I don't believe that every film with unanswered questions is inherently bad. For the umpteenth time—I am talking about the cohesion of the story.

Who's actually out there building stuff in space? Seriously.

How do they actually work?

Just asking. Purely out of curiosity.

Why do their suppliers toss us a tiny little crumb of an incentive just to get the ball rolling, and then expect us to hit full speed through pure "spontaneous growth" without any more help? It’s a joke. Expecting massive progress after one small nudge is just bad business. Typical.

There’s zero proof anyone’s actually watching us. None. It’s just curiosity driving the whole thing.

Whatever. Why's it like this?Yeah, well, we're living that question right now.

Did it only hit the people who actually touched it, or was the whole damn country affected?
If that were actually true, why didn't it mess with anything else alive?
Why'd they put the monolith on the Moon instead of right here on Earth? Makes zero sense if you think about it too long. Just seems like a massive detour.
What’s the deal with this alignment with the Sun—or whatever star we're calling it today? I mean, fine, maybe it pulls some solar energy or whatever, but what's the actual point?

It was like hitting a guy who’s used an abacus his whole life with a Pentium 133. Total system shock. Overkill.
He was on Earth.

What's Hall's actual deal?

What’s even the point of acting, man? Seriously. It’s the same question we've been asking since we first started building fancy tech. What’s the actual role of a human being in all this?

Why'd things go south so fast?
So, what's the point of all these monoliths? We just trek through everything just to end up stuck in some room until we die? That's it?

Yeah. That’s exactly why we dig. We research until we drop dead, and after that? Who knows. Our experience tells us there's nothing left once you hit the limit.

What did that hotel stay do to him? Man, he came out of that room looking like some kind of alien baby from a sci-fi flick.

A baby is just symbolism.

Why didn't they just make whatever he's got out of a single monolith? Just one solid piece. Seems easier.

Look, we don't know what the Monolith actually is or what it can technically do. Honestly? Who cares. It doesn't matter. What matters is the way that thing messes with your head. That’s the only part worth watching.

My whole creationist theory using the Bible still feels like the best explanation to me, even if you guys keep insisting the Odyssey has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't. It just shows there's a higher intelligence at work.

And I don't think a movie is bad just because it leaves things unsaid. For the nth time—I'm talking about narrative cohesion.

But the story keeps going. A new life cycle. If it were some cheap thriller, my mom would be bugging me afterward asking what happened to the guy who killed her, or what happened to the kid...

I appreciate you all providing such specific answers.

Cut the sarcasm.

🙏🙏🙏

Why don't you all go back to dissecting the new season of TD? You’ve already picked this topic apart to death. You can interpret Odyssey in plenty of ways, and honestly, Interstellar is a solid movie. It isn't the life-changing masterpiece some people claim it is, but it certainly isn't the absolute garbage others make it out to be.

As for TD, I'm disappointed. 👎

Honestly, I’m feeling pretty discouraged after that second season. It felt like they didn't really put in the work, you know? To me, the first season was just the launchpad—it was basically the setup crew building the entire starship that the second season was supposed to fly.

Man, Vince Vaughn is such a total badass. 🤣🤦

I mean, I already knew he wasn't exactly an Oscar contender, but I didn't expect this level of 🤦

Honestly, I can't decide who was more painful to watch—him or that guy on the Harley.

Walter Grant5 said:Cut the sarcasm.

Is sarcasm really the most extreme reaction I could have to the answers you provided, especially considering you were the one who asked me to start asking questions in the first place?

brightpilot6 said:Their debut, Imprimatur, is essentially a carbon copy of The Name of the Rose.

To suggest any comparison with Dan Brown is an insult in its own right.

What they actually share with Brown is the tendency to scavenge through existing non-fiction works—those pieces that lament over controversial historical truths—and simply repackage them into fiction. This isn't the result of their own original research, nor do they spend time scouring historical archives. And when it comes to actual knowledge of the Middle Ages, is it not likely that Eco forgot more than M&S will ever know? ☕

The prose quality, the rhythm, and the depth of characterization all fall significantly short of Eco's standard. The scope is narrower, and the humor lacks his wit. Furthermore, for Eco, a specific historical event or setting serves as a subtle backdrop for the narrative rather than its entire backbone. A novel can certainly stand on its own without relying on a bombastic, global conspiracy to drive the plot.

That isn't to say it isn't enjoyable, educational, or intriguing to read some of the theories M&S wrap inside a historical novel. Personally, I found Mysterium to be exceptional; that was the one moment where I truly felt Eco's influence, whereas everything else felt a step below. It isn't bad, per se, but it hardly reaches greatness.

I don't think you've actually read their interviews, and it feels like you're just being stubborn, kind of like how you were about Interstellar. You seem to be writing about things without looking into them enough before forming an opinion, though I still enjoy reading your posts. Actually, M&S definitely did dive into the archives. Here's a quote from the website of their US publisher: "Imprimatur is a novel based on true archival material that was often inaccessible to the public, which Rita Monaldi and Francesco Sorti spent over ten years collecting."

And here's a snippet from one of their interviews: "In the spring, we finished 'Mysterium,' the fourth title in the saga started with 'Imprimatur.' We spent three years researching in Vienna, Rome, and Paris, even employing a ten-person team to work for us, but it was still incredibly exhausting and time-consuming archival work."

Yet you're still insisting they don't use archives and that they're mostly just recycling non-fiction. They literally hired a whole team for a single book. There are plenty of quotes out there proving my point if you bother to look online...

And please, what exactly makes Imprimatur a copy of The Name of the Rose? I haven't heard a comparison like that in ages. The only similarity is that the Church is central to the plot, but The Name of the Rose is set in the late Middle Ages and focuses on murders in a monastery, while Imprimatur is set during the Baroque era and deals with European espionage and Pope Innocent XI. Saying it's a copy is like saying Interstellar is a copy of the Odyssey just because it takes place in space...

ruggedjackal46 said:If someone had actually told me I’d find myself on a sports forum debating whether Eco, Borges, Kubrick, or Nolan is the superior choice, I would have assumed we were reenacting some classic Saturday Night Live sketch 😁.

🤣🤣🤣

Anyway, season two of TD is honestly such a letdown compared to the first one. I'm officially calling it quits on the rest of the series...

brightpilot6 said:Who exactly is placing these monoliths?
How do they actually function?
Why do their agents provide us with a tiny nudge forward, only to wait millions of years for spontaneous evolution without any further intervention?
Did the influence apply only to those who physically touched them, or did it affect the entire population?
If it was the latter, why didn't it affect other living creatures?
And why wasn't a monolith found on Earth, but rather on the Moon instead?
What is the connection to the alignment with the Sun—or rather, the star (though perhaps it operates on solar energy)?
What role does HAL play in all of this?
Why did he malfunction?
Is the ultimate purpose of all these monoliths simply to lead us into some room where we live out our days until death?
What did that stay in the room do to the man that resulted in him being reborn as that celestial infant?
Why didn't they just use a monolith to create whatever it was they made for him?

My creationist theory involving the Bible actually provides me with the most coherent explanation, yet you all insisted that the movie has nothing to do with it.

So, I am speaking strictly about the film, the narrative, and the internal logic of the movie itself, not Clarke's novel.

And I don't believe that every film with unanswered questions is inherently bad. For the umpteenth time—I am talking about the cohesion of the story.

Aliens place the monoliths.
It's hard to say exactly how they work. The first nudged humans toward using tools—let's call it a form of hypnosis. The second sent a signal toward Jupiter, and the third acts as a sort of gateway.

Regarding the third question, look at it this way. They travel through space out of pure curiosity and stumble upon Earth. Out of all the species, they see one with the potential to develop intelligence, but it's on the brink of extinction due to famine. They nudge them to use weapons, then leave a second monolith on the Moon to signal what those primates have become and whether they survived.

Perhaps it couldn't affect all life forms. Humans were developing intelligence on their own; the monolith simply gave them the idea to use weaponry to ensure survival.

The second monolith was placed on the Moon because it serves as an alarm. Its purpose is to signal that humanity survived and reached the Moon—that they are ready for First Contact. It wouldn't make sense to have it on Earth.

The planetary alignment doesn't really mean anything, other than looking visually striking.

HAL's role is to demonstrate the progression of intelligence, and he malfunctioned because he was given conflicting orders.
He had to cooperate with the crew while simultaneously concealing the true objective of the mission.

That scene in the room is a symbolic depiction of the aliens turning the character into a mediator between themselves and humanity.
They couldn't do it via a monolith because a monolith isn't capable of that. A monolith is a machine. You can't travel through a lathe or use a drill to access the internet.

The creationist theory isn't particularly realistic.
Humans were already evolving intelligence; the monolith didn't physically alter them or implant brains into them. It merely helped them survive. If their existence hadn't been threatened, they would have developed intelligence regardless. The problem was they simply ran out of time.

Why did aliens build all of this?
It's simple: curiosity.

James Anderson5 said:I don't think you've actually read their interviews, and it feels like you're just being stubborn, kind of like how you were about Interstellar. You seem to be writing about things without looking into them enough before forming an opinion, though I still enjoy reading your posts. Actually, M&S definitely did dive into the archives. Here's a quote from the website of their US publisher: "Imprimatur is a novel based on true archival material that was often inaccessible to the public, which Rita Monaldi and Francesco Sorti spent over ten years collecting."

And here's a snippet from one of their interviews: "In the spring, we finished 'Mysterium,' the fourth title in the saga started with 'Imprimatur.' We spent three years researching in Vienna, Rome, and Paris, even employing a ten-person team to work for us, but it was still incredibly exhausting and time-consuming archival work."

Yet you're still insisting they don't use archives and that they're mostly just recycling non-fiction. They literally hired a whole team for a single book. There are plenty of quotes out there proving my point if you bother to look online...

And please, what exactly makes Imprimatur a copy of The Name of the Rose? I haven't heard a comparison like that in ages. The only similarity is that the Church is central to the plot, but The Name of the Rose is set in the late Middle Ages and focuses on murders in a monastery, while Imprimatur is set during the Baroque era and deals with European espionage and Pope Innocent XI. Saying it's a copy is like saying Interstellar is a copy of the Odyssey just because it takes place in space...

🤣

I suspect I’ve likely combed through every single interview that you have.

If you truly believe it’s realistic for those two—who, let’s be honest, aren't exactly trained historians—to spend just a few years poking through well-known archives across the country between their regular day jobs and somehow unearth four, or potentially even seven (!) massive historical lies with such staggering implications, then I can only tell you that you're mistaken.

It’s a truth that many self-proclaimed, serious historians will never quite manage to grasp, even if they spend their entire lives searching for it.

I’ll stand by my word on this one: I don't buy for a second that they unearthed these narratives just by digging through old archives; it feels much more like they simply scavenged them from existing research. As for the actual historical accuracy—well, the first two novels might hold some water, but the latter two? It's hard to take them seriously when you consider a plot involving a banker conspiracy—likely targeting Jewish financiers—aimed at assassinating an enlightened Austrian leader destined to become a French Emperor just to prevent global peace. Throw in some fabricated antiquity and entirely made-up centuries, and you have to wonder what exactly we're supposed to be reading here. 🤷 Before we dive into the conspiracy theories—and I have certainly spent my fair share of time reading up on this particular one, both before and after the fact—one has to wonder where the line actually sits?Fomenko 🙏🙏I find this subject incredibly compelling, but I’m going to need some actual historical facts to back it up—please? It would be nice to have something to go on regarding its credibility and originality.

Oh, they certainly did their homework on the background details for those novels—good grief, even Hemingway went through that level of rigor. They were obsessed with capturing the exact atmosphere of the eras they wrote about, meticulously studying the key historical figures, the social hierarchies, and even the smallest, most trivial nuances of daily life just to get the setting right. But in all that pursuit of authenticity, they tended to overlook the most vital elements, didn't they? And honestly, let them have their little distractions. 🤷

I’m honestly not quite sure why you reacted so defensively, as if suggesting they didn't uncover these stories through their own investigative work was some kind of personal insult. My intention wasn't to imply their quality is lacking—certainly not on par with someone like Brown—but rather to point out that they utilized a similar methodology, and that’s really where the comparison ends. Their final product is, by any measure, significantly superior.

Shouldn't we admit that Eco didn't really need to lean into that kind of sensationalism in his books, nor did he require those flashy publicity stunts that brands like Macy's pull off so effectively during their campaigns? It’s just an objective fact, isn't it?

James Anderson5 said:I don't think you've actually read their interviews, and it feels like you're just being stubborn, kind of like how you were about Interstellar. You seem to be writing about things without looking into them enough before forming an opinion, though I still enjoy reading your posts. Actually, M&S definitely did dive into the archives. Here's a quote from the website of their US publisher: "Imprimatur is a novel based on true archival material that was often inaccessible to the public, which Rita Monaldi and Francesco Sorti spent over ten years collecting."

And here's a snippet from one of their interviews: "In the spring, we finished 'Mysterium,' the fourth title in the saga started with 'Imprimatur.' We spent three years researching in Vienna, Rome, and Paris, even employing a ten-person team to work for us, but it was still incredibly exhausting and time-consuming archival work."

Yet you're still insisting they don't use archives and that they're mostly just recycling non-fiction. They literally hired a whole team for a single book. There are plenty of quotes out there proving my point if you bother to look online...

And please, what exactly makes Imprimatur a copy of The Name of the Rose? I haven't heard a comparison like that in ages. The only similarity is that the Church is central to the plot, but The Name of the Rose is set in the late Middle Ages and focuses on murders in a monastery, while Imprimatur is set during the Baroque era and deals with European espionage and Pope Innocent XI. Saying it's a copy is like saying Interstellar is a copy of the Odyssey just because it takes place in space...

Is there anything else they share?

1. The narrative framework is practically identical—we have a narrator who, after several years, comes into possession of an original manuscript and decides to lay it all out for us.
2. The protagonist is a monk who possesses sharp detective instincts while simultaneously juggling significant political responsibilities.
3. He is accompanied by an inexperienced young man acting as his second.
4. This very sidekick eventually writes the manuscript that recounts the entire story told by our narrator.
5. The monk seems almost detached from standard human desires, whereas the sidekick, unable to resist temptation, ends up losing a woman.
6. The mystery unfolds within a closed environment, a sort of isolated setting where nobody can enter or leave, featuring a strictly limited cast of characters.
7. In both instances, the monk is tasked with investigating a murder within this confined space.
8. There also exist secret passages in both stories, which turn out to be used by many of the inhabitants of the enclosed community.
9. Running parallel to the detective work is the monk's ongoing political mission.
10. There is a dense collection of minor motifs: relic sellers peddling skulls, and various codes and ciphers that the detective duo must hunt down and crack—one hidden within a labyrinth, another embedded in music.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/presidential-election-updates/382295/?foto=8

Headline 🤣